Here's the problem with McCain (Remember Alcibiades?)

Tapscott's Copy Desk

If there is any justice in the world, Sen. John McCain's hopes of winning the 2008 Republican presidential nomination will suffer a body blow when people are reminded of a well-sourced story published last year by The Hill describing in detail how the Arizona "maverick" seriously discussed switching parties with Democratic leaders like Tom Daschle in 2001.

McCain was evidently still angry - is he ever not angry over something? - about losing the 2000 race to President Bush and apparently was attracted to the idea of gaining revenge by picking up his marbles and taking them to the other party, as Jim Jeffords did. The Jeffords move gave Daschle and the Democrats majority control of the Senate, just as McCain would have done had he followed through on his discussions before Jeffords switched.

Daschle talked at length with The Hill about his negotiations with McCain over the possible switch:

"Daschle noted that McCain at that time was frustrated with the Bush administration as a result of his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primary.

"Daschle said that throughout April and May of 2001, he and McCain 'had meetings and conversations on the floor and in his office, I think in mine as well, about how we would do it, what the conditions would be. We talked about committees and his seniority … [A lot of issues] were on the table.'

"Absolutely not so, according to McCain. In a statement released by his campaign, McCain said, 'As I said in 2001, I never considered leaving the Republican Party, period.'

"Some of the meetings Daschle referred to are detailed in the former senator’s 2003 book.

"Other senators who played major roles in the intense recruiting effort, according to Democrats, were then-Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) as well as Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

“'John [Edwards] at that time was working with McCain on a couple things and there was a sense that because of his relationship that he might be a good person to talk to him,' Daschle said. 'He was clearly one of those that we thought could be helpful.'

"A source close to Edwards said Daschle’s comments are accurate."

The story shines an unwanted spotlight on the basic problem of McCain as GOP standard bearer. The party remains at least nominally conservative, but McCain has built his presidential aspirations and image on an angry regimen of poking sticks in the eyes of conservatives on basic principles by working to advance liberal goals.

A cooperative mainstream media that shares those liberal goals helps advance them by gleefully praising McCain at every turn for his "independence" and "straight talk." Meanwhile, McCain is bolstered as a serious obstacle to achieving conservative reforms like appointment of strict constructionist judges to the federal bench. The influence of the obstructionist wing of the Senate GOP is similarly magnified.

The monuments to McCain's destructive approach are seen across the political landscape of the past decade, such as putting Congress in control of political speech via McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform (which became law) and granting amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens via McCain-Kennedy immigration reform (which would have become law but for a sustained outpouring of public disgust).

To put McCain in proper perspective, imagine if the mainstream media had been touting former Sen. Zell Miller as the Maverick to lead the Democratic party in 2004 because he demonstrated his independence by helping Bush and the GOP enact tax cuts, pass school vouchers and pack the Supreme Court with clones of Justice Clarence Thomas.

But The Hill story also shines a light on another fact about McCain - He is a man too often governed by his emotions. Washington is full of people - other senators and representatives, party activists, witnesses in congressional hearings, campaign donors, journalists, think tankers, etc. etc. - who have experienced a McCain explosion.

That McCain was so angry about his loss to Bush in 2000 that he would seriously consider switching parties as a means of gaining revenge comes as no surprise to those who have seen the Arizonan's anger in full cry.

That is not the emotional profile of the person who should have his finger on the nuclear button. At best, McCain's temperament ought to be a reminder of the lessons of Alcibiades whose undoubted brilliance as a military commander was undone time and again by the selfishness of his character.

So we are left with McCain's military background and his professed readiness to be commander-in-chief from day one and thus is the best qualified man to be president during the War on Terror. He may well be ready, but military background is no guarantee that anybody will be a good president.

Just consider past presidents. Ike was a great war leader but only so-so as president. JFK was the decorated hero of PT-109 fame, but his presidency was an ineffectual mess at the time of his assassination. Then there is the other president whose military experience was his chief qualification for office - Union Gen. U.S. Grant. His was among the most corrupt presidential administrations in American history.

I count myself an admirer of the U.S. military - I dropped Air Force ROTC when it became clear my seriously near-sighted eyes would bar my flying B-52s - but the historical record suggests that military service isn't an indicator of likely success in the Oval Office. Lincoln saw only brief service in a minor Indian war, FDR was Secretary of the Navy and Reagan helped make movies for the home front.

That leaves Teddy Roosevelt and George Washington. The former is considered by historians of the conventional wisdom to have been one of the better presidents, while the latter is, justifiably, in a class of his own. But then that makes him the exception that proves the rule.

Yes, McCain suffered much for his country and we all owe him our eternal admiration and gratitude for a noble sacrifice. But we don't owe him the White House.





Mark Tapscott is editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner and tracks the internet revolution in media and government. He is a member of the National Freedom of Information Hall of Fame and a member of the Media Bloggers Association board of directors. He is also a founding member and host of NewsTrust.net, as well as a visiting journalism fellow at The Heritage Foundation think tank.